varnAshrama Dharma a.k.a Caste System.

[Vaidya N. Sundaram]

 I came across in the www.kamakoti.org paegs. This should clarify all
doubts on this topic. I have posted only two paragraphs from the site,
I refer you to the articles in it's entirety for further reading at
www.kamakoti.org/1-1.html


===

 The teaching of the Bhagavatpada, as well as the teachings of other
Aachaaryas, which, following the Vedas, are intended for the
purification and elevation of one's Atman, prescribes that the Dharmas
mentioned in the vedas should be practised by men in accordance with
their respective Varnas and Ashramas. The Varnashrama Dharmas have been
ordained by Sastras, not merely to foster among men an attitude of
mutual helpfulness or only to promote the general cooperative material
well-being of society. They have been prescribed for self-purification
which they effect by developing peace, an essential means to liberation,
and which cannot be otherwise experience.

[ few paragraphs deleted ...]

 After these verses occurs the verse beginning with 'tasmaat saastram
pramaanam te'. Thus Sri Sankara follows the Gita when He declares that
the observance of Varnashrama Dharma leads to self-purification and
elevation of the Atman.

===

Vaidya.


                      Vaidya N. Sundaram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kandavar Vindilar      : Those who have seen (Brahman) have not spoken
  Vindavar Kandilar     :   those who speak (about It) have not seen (It)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    satyakAma, satyasaMkalpa, Apatsakha, kAkutsa, shrIman nArAyaNa
        puruShottaMa, shrI ranganAtha, mama nAtha, namostute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From  Sat Jun  6 22:59:00 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.6.JUN.1998.225900.0700.>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 22:59:00 -0700
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Personal
Subject: Re: What is adhikAra?  (fwd)
Comments: To: Advaita List <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM> writes:

> I fail to see why you are always posting stuff against "intellectual
> dialog". Were all the books quoted below written without any
> intellectual thought? Wouldn't it be easy to say, "I experienced thus,
> go experience it yourself, end of book"? Why would shrI sureshvara take
> pains to use logic in his writings?

Greetings Rama:

Ego is the primary motive for the intellectual dialog and the dialog has
Spiritual content.  The spiritual dialog is spontaneous and establishes
PEACE to all those who engaged in such dialogs.
Some examples are necessary to make the point clear.   I remember my
visit to Devi Meenakshi Temple at Madurai during my school and college
days.   I used to go to the temple early morning at 5:00 A.M. to witness
the early morning Puja and Aarathi.  During the Puja time and Aarathi
time, the bell continued to ring.  In those moments, everyone inside the
Sanctum Sanctorum of Devi Meenakshi engaged in the SPIRITUAL DIALOG.  In
those moments of spiritual dialog, Devi Meenakshi poured an Ocean of
Grace to everyone in the Sannathi and  I have enjoyed peace and
tranquility.  My eyes were closed, mind was at rest, mouth was shut, and
the ears could only hear the sound of OM from the ringing of the bells.
On the other hand when we start an intellectual dialog of arguments and
counter arguments (such as the dialog between you, me and Sri. Vaidya
Sundaram on Atharvaveda),  our Ego dominates over the "intellect" and
consequently, we lose our discriminating wisdom and engage producing
garbage!   The great saints of the past including Sri Sankara have
applied their intellect to guide the common people for spiritual
growth.  We are neither vegetables nor Jnanis.  Consequently, we have to
remind ourselves often about the pitfalls of endless intellectual
debates and learn to stop at the appropriate time.

>  I find it very sad that you exercise your intellect to condemn the
> great seers of the atharvaNa veda themselves as "primitive" (in another
> post), but with monotonous regularity put down "intellectual
> discussions".

You seem to have a misunderstanding on my stand on Atharva.  I have
never condemned the great seers of the Atharvaveda.  I was trying to
answer a question raised by Vivek Ganesan Atharvaveda.  My answer was a
restatement from books and it is a  known fact that we don't have
authentic texts on our religion and we face the consequences.  We don't
have any reliable information on the status of Atharvaveda before
Vedavyasa's time period.  I believe in our Holy Scriptures and I will be
last person in the earth to condemn the seers and sages of Vedic time
period.  If I have given such an impression to you, let me apologize to
you ask you to forgive me.

I have read several of your previous postings and I admire your
scholarship and enthusiasm.  I am very pleased to see excellent postings
from youngsters like you and keep up with your good work.
regards,

Ram Chandran
Burke, VA

>From  Sun Jun  7 13:55:40 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.7.JUN.1998.135540.0400.>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 13:55:40 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: What is adhikAra?  (fwd)
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ram Chandran wrote:

> Ego is the primary motive for the intellectual dialog and the dialog has
> Spiritual content.  The spiritual dialog is spontaneous and establishes
> PEACE to all those who engaged in such dialogs.

Ego is also the primary motive for denunciations of all dialogs and
thoughts which you have expressed above.

> Some examples are necessary to make the point clear.   I remember my

[ ... ]

> the ears could only hear the sound of OM from the ringing of the bells.

What you are saying is that you know better than all those folks. While
that may indeed be true, just remember the story of nArada. Why bother
about what someone else does in the temple? As long as they do not
bother you, how does it matter to you what they do? One never knows how
the future will turn out.

> On the other hand when we start an intellectual dialog of arguments and
> counter arguments (such as the dialog between you, me and Sri. Vaidya
> Sundaram on Atharvaveda),  our Ego dominates over the "intellect" and
> consequently, we lose our discriminating wisdom and engage producing
> garbage!

I beg to differ. The point was about the seers of the atharva veda. You
quoted stuff denigrating them and I begged/still beg to differ. Only one
opinion can be called garbage as they are mutually exclusive. What you
are trying to do is confuse the pAramArthika and vyAvahara points of
view and produce a mish-mash which will lead no where.

> applied their intellect to guide the common people for spiritual
> growth.  We are neither vegetables nor Jnanis.  Consequently, we have to
> remind ourselves often about the pitfalls of endless intellectual
> debates and learn to stop at the appropriate time.

Engaging in vain intellectual debate is a waste of time no doubt, but
pointing out the importance of veda-s is certainly OK (at least in my
book).

> >  I find it very sad that you exercise your intellect to condemn the
> > great seers of the atharvaNa veda themselves as "primitive" (in another
> > post), but with monotonous regularity put down "intellectual
> > discussions".
>
> You seem to have a misunderstanding on my stand on Atharva.  I have
> never condemned the great seers of the Atharvaveda.  I was trying to
> answer a question raised by Vivek Ganesan Atharvaveda.  My answer was a
> restatement from books and it is a  known fact that we don't have
> authentic texts on our religion and we face the consequences.  We don't

We don't have "authentic" texts? Again I beg to differ. We are
discussing advaita here. The veda-s are the authentic "texts". Period.
End of the story.

> have any reliable information on the status of Atharvaveda before
> Vedavyasa's time period.  I believe in our Holy Scriptures and I will be
> last person in the earth to condemn the seers and sages of Vedic time
> period.  If I have given such an impression to you, let me apologize to
> you ask you to forgive me.

I don't understand this "forgive" stuff. I was only pointing out that as
advaitins we need to understand what advaita teachers say about veda-s
etc. Calling the atharva veda primitive certainly seems like an insult
to the seers of the atharva veda!

BTW, I was not "offended" by your comments on the atharva veda. I never
usually argue with people who might express such opinions or even bother
to reply. But on this list it's different. We are talking about advaita.

Rama